I disagree with pretty much everything you said- except anything which is your opinion- I can't disagree with that.
Actually, you don't disagree with everything I said. I don't see how you can, unless you have an encyclopedic knowledge of Smalltalk systems. You apparently disagree with a more extreme misreading of it. You're likely using rules of thumb developed while working in other environments, which may not be as universal as you think.
A synopsis of what I actually said: I know of one context where sometimes debugging is easier than reading comments. What is it that you think I said which you disagree with?
Comments allow you not to have to digest and understand the code, and with a debugger you will still need to digest code.
Sometimes even the underlying concept is hard to grok from a written description, but easier to see played out. Sometimes the concept can be more difficult than any part of the code. Also, if your debugger is friendly enough, digesting running, tweakable, explorable code can be considerably easier than a static reading.
No matter how "good" you are at using a debugger.
I have been teaching an intro class where some egghead Wall Street quant spontaneously exclaimed: "Oh my gosh, this debugger is MAGIC!" From the assumptions you carry around, it seems likely you just lack the same kind of experience. The order of magnitude is about the same as going to GDB from no debugger at all.
Why do you have such a bee in your bonnet about Smalltalk? Are we not allowed to discuss the pros and cons of various commenting styles in other programming languages without you stopping by to evangelize? People who brag about their "encyclopedic" knowledge are usually about as welcome as encyclopedia salesmen.
Your comments are very insightful. I know this because I try to read the whole comment before judging. Unfortunately, even in fairly intelligent audiences like HN, it is common for people to form judgements based primarily on first impressions. Someone who reads only the first sentence (or even the second sentence) of any of your comments in this thread will think that your are hostile and condescending, which is probably why people are fighting back instead of listening to the insight that you share later in each comment. Your comments will generate more interesting conversation, and are more likely to be truly heard and understood, if you are more careful with your early words.
Your comments are very insightful. I know this because I try to read the whole comment before judging. Unfortunately, even in fairly intelligent audiences like HN, it is common for people to form judgements based primarily on first impressions.
"First impression" now equals "Incorrect conclusion from careless partial reading?"
And people wonder why I so often complain about "poor reading comprehension" even on HN?
Sometimes that "Incorrect conclusion from careless partial reading" is actually "Incorrect conclusion from reading ambiguous text." You can argue everything you say is always crystal clear, but...well...I'll leave it at that.
And if that careless partial reading comment is directed at me, which it is fair for me to assume so seeing as this conversation started from a retort to my comment, I didn't only read a piece of the post. Before I comment I read the entire post and sometimes (usually on forums) I break the post apart like you've done and respond to pieces at a time.
Anyways. I find it very amusing that you disregarded such high praise; however, it would have been odd not to do so seeing as the poster seemed to make the mistake you seem to dislike.
I'm not sure if you were referring to me here, but personally I did read the entire comment and found all of it hostile and condescending. I also find his insinuation that I haven't read his comments thoroughly enough hostile and condescending.
Although you are correct in saying that the comment was hostile and condescending. I'm sure the poster meant it to be as such for many possible reasons none of which I will try to guess.
Stating that someone has "incomplete experience" is hostile, as opposed to informative? The statement was meant to tweak natural curiosity. Apparently, I'm supposed to stroke everyone's ego so that they feel perfect, otherwise I'm called "hostile."
First off, I apologize if I offended you somehow. However, my points are still as valid as they were the first time I made them- except maybe I don't disagree with everything you said. I didn't realize you were saying you know one context in which a debugger makes more sense rather than every context. I thought you meant most which I view as a fallacy for many reasons. The first of which being you don't know every context. But enough of that, I understand what you meant.
You are right in the respect that sometimes the underlying concept can't be understood clearly from comments -and your method could suffice. I didn't mean to imply that comments are always the best thing imaginable one can add to his code. That is far from true. However, in my years of coding I have found comments to be very helpful.
I have used plenty of debuggers and some are better than others; however, claiming I have a lack of experience is ridiculous. Especially claiming I have the experience of some egghead Wall Street ?quant?(I've never heard of that word). You do not know me, you have never seen my code, and you most certainly have never seen me use a debugger. I wouldn't be so quick with those assumptions yourself.
As you said, some debuggers are better than others. However, you may be surprised by how much better some debuggers are than others. If you have any interest in debuggers, and how awesome they can be, it is worth giving VisualWorks a try.
I'm not going to make any assertions about anyone's experience. If you would like to see the Smalltalk debugger in action without trying the environment, have a look at the videos here (each is in the 2-5 minute range):
Actually, you don't disagree with everything I said. I don't see how you can, unless you have an encyclopedic knowledge of Smalltalk systems. You apparently disagree with a more extreme misreading of it. You're likely using rules of thumb developed while working in other environments, which may not be as universal as you think.
A synopsis of what I actually said: I know of one context where sometimes debugging is easier than reading comments. What is it that you think I said which you disagree with?
Comments allow you not to have to digest and understand the code, and with a debugger you will still need to digest code.
Sometimes even the underlying concept is hard to grok from a written description, but easier to see played out. Sometimes the concept can be more difficult than any part of the code. Also, if your debugger is friendly enough, digesting running, tweakable, explorable code can be considerably easier than a static reading.
No matter how "good" you are at using a debugger.
I have been teaching an intro class where some egghead Wall Street quant spontaneously exclaimed: "Oh my gosh, this debugger is MAGIC!" From the assumptions you carry around, it seems likely you just lack the same kind of experience. The order of magnitude is about the same as going to GDB from no debugger at all.